Note to self: Shakespeare reads immensely better once seen. At least for me.

I thoroughly enjoyed the performance on Friday — sure, it was amateurs, and the actor who played Puck was young and he rushed his lines, but the the actor playing Bottom was hilarious, as were the other leads. But because I had seen it, and had the basic gist of who was whom and where they were going and what was supposed to be funny, the text was much more accessible to me than when I read As You Like It.

So, things that struck me while seeing/reading the play:

Oberon is a bit of a jerk, isn’t he? I mean, really, he set this whole mess in motion just because he wanted Tatania’s little changeling boy. How selfish.

It’s really a very silly play. All of the Riverside Shakespeare’s (that’s the version I have, complete with hubby’s notes from his college Shakespeare class written in the margins) hifalutin’ notions aside, there really isn’t much to this play other than a lot of silliness.

Shakespeare is amazing: not only can he write good plays, but he can write excellent parodies of bad plays. I think in many ways, the fifth act was my favorite part. Alack, alack, alack!

What happens if Demetrius wakes up one day wondering how on earth he managed to get married to Helena?

It’s quite fitting to see this play in a park setting, especially on a summer evening. There wasn’t any fixed stage; they had roped off an area, and we sat on blankets and lawn chairs surrounding the “stage”. The actors ran around us — for the part in the forest where Hermia’s chasing Lysander’s chasing Helena who’s being chased by Demetrius they ran all through the trees and the audience. It was very fun.

I think this play is probably one of Shakespeare’s more accessible plays. There’s romance, there’s humor, there’s faeries. And it’s really not all that confusing.

I’m glad that this was part of the challenge. Without it, I may have never been pushed to see the Shakespeare in the park, and I had a grand time. They’re doing Measure for Measure in September (when it cools back down!), and we’re definitely going to go.

I have no idea how to write this without sounding, well, un-ed-jee-kated. Coz, unlike many English students/graduates/professors, I firmly believe that Shakespeare should be SEEN and not READ. I try once in a blue moon (granted the last time I tried was, oh, about 17 years ago when I was in college) to read a Shakespeare play, and, I’m sorry to say, it always ends up with the same result. I. Don’t. Get. It.

I remember my high school AP English class, struggling through Hamlet, until my mom suggested that she and I read it aloud. All of a sudden, it made (more) sense. Since then, I’ve been a big fan of seeing the Bard’s plays, but not so much reading them. I’d like to say that years and years of not reading Shakespeare would make a difference. And maybe since this play is one of his comedies that would make it easier, but, sorry, no. I read the words, and even managed to be surprised that “all the world’s a stage, and the men and women are merely players” turned up in the play. But, I just don’t get the appeal of reading the words on the page. It’s a decent play, and I think I got the gist of what was going on. But, I think I would have enjoyed it (and understood it) so much more if I’d seen it.

My question then, I suppose, is for Carl: If I go see Midsummer Night’s Dream on Friday, do I still have to read it?

My family, growing up, was one of those who didn’t go to amusement parks. Even though I was promised a trip to Disneyland, we never made it (we moved across the country instead). No, we were subjected to Educational Trips. I remember monuments, national parks, historical sites, battle sites… my dad’s dragged the family to all sorts of places. I guess it’s even more telling that I married a man who feels much the same way about vacations: a trip to a national park or a Civil or Revolutionary War battle site is what a good vacation is all about.

The thing is, when it comes to the battle sites, I could care less. Walking around a nice piece of countryside where lots of people shot at each other a long time ago isn’t my idea of a fun way to spend an afternoon. So, I suppose it’s no surprise that I’d never heard of or expressed interest in this book by Michael Shaara.

I should say, then, thank heavens for book groups. Because without my in-person group, I never ever would have read this book. And I was fascinated by it.

For those of you who don’t know, it’s a novel about the three days of the battle of Gettysburg, beginning with the day before. It’s the story of how General Lee lost the war, of how the North managed to dig in and pull out a victory. It’s heart-rendering. It’s exciting. It’s… well… a classic.

Sure, the book has it’s drawbacks. It’s a war book. That, in itself, could be a drawback. But it’s an engaging read — much of it is internal monologue with the main characters: Lee, Longstreet, Chamberlan. Sometimes, the rambling got long, and I do have to admit that I skimmed parts that got boring (granted, there were times I regretted that, and had to go back and re-read). But for the most part, it was a compelling book. The most exciting part, for me, was Chamberlain’s defense of Little Round Top. It was gutsy, brilliant, and dang impressive. And I had no idea. I think that’s probably the most interesting thing about this book: it’s so well written that I could believe that this wasn’t made up, that it actually really happened the way Shaara wrote it. I had to keep reminding myself that it’s fiction, that Lee/Chamberlain/Longstreet probably didn’t actually think/feel/say these things.

But wouldn’t it be interesting if they did?